Author Topic: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)  (Read 47213 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4640
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #60 on: October 29, 2005, 10:05:38 AM »
The Court wishes the Mr. Prosecutor a safe and enjoyable vacation/holiday. This Court shall stand in recess until Nov. 8.

Rob Moshein
Presiding Judge

Offline Richard_Cullen

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 373
  • Sad memory brings the light. Thomas Moore 1815
    • View Profile
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #61 on: December 01, 2005, 06:39:24 AM »
Acting Presiding Judge Rob and esteemed counsel for the defence.

Sorry I have not been back beforehand but after our holidays my eldest daughter was taken seriously ill and it has somewhat disrupted normal life.

I have nothing factual to add to my submissions and it is my firm belief that there is no realistic defence to the fact that the Tsar was in de facto command of the Army, that he was briefed about the events pre and post and could have made directions for troops and police not to enagge the peaceful demonstrators.

I am therefore content for this issue to proceed to the jury for thier decision

Richard
I feel like one
Who treads alone
Some banquet-hall deserted,
Whose lights are fled,
Whose garlands dead,
And all, but he, departed!
Refrain:
Thus, in the stilly night,
Ere slumberís chain hath bound me,
Sad memíry brings the light
Of other days around me.

Thomas Moore 1815

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4640
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #62 on: December 01, 2005, 08:58:41 AM »
Thank you Mr. Prosecutor.

Please proceed with your next issue at your leisure as this first issue is now closed and shall be submitted to the jury as Charge 1. The Court shall stand in further recess until submission of Charge 2 by the Prosecution.

Rob Moshein
Presiding Judge.

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4437
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #63 on: December 01, 2005, 06:37:03 PM »

I would like to extend to your Honor, to Richard, and all members of the Jury best wishes for the coming holidays.  Have a safe and joyous New New!

Richard, I sincerely hope the very best for your family at this time. My thoughts are with you.

Margarita Nelipa
For the Defense


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Richard_Cullen

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 373
  • Sad memory brings the light. Thomas Moore 1815
    • View Profile
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #64 on: December 28, 2005, 02:36:26 AM »
Your Honour Acting presiding Judge Rob and learned senior Counsel for the defence Margarita I hope you and your families, partners, friends or whoever is close to you had an excellent Christmas and will have the most enjoyable and prosperpous of New Year ever.  It has been a pleasure working with you and learning from you over the last twelve months or so.

Rob and Margaita, I need to check out how we proceed from here with the trial.  Is it intended I should now submit evidence of further crimes against humanity - the pogroms against the Jews, repression after the 1905 Revolution etc?

This research was initially being taken on by others who now no longer participate in the prosecution and I will have to carry out some detailed personal research to put together a meaningful case.

For me there is a considerable challenge, as you know I work full time and also have many other outside interests mainly around management issues and leadership.  I am also going to be under substantial pressure form my editor to turn my book on leadership into a reality for publication next year so I won't have much free time.

Rob do you think we might consider asking for an assistant prosecutor(s) from the members who has particular knowledge of the pogroms and or the represssions?  I know this might be difficult as most of the members from my limited knowledge tend to be supportes of the IF.  I don't think it is necessary to be against the IF (I am not) to be on the prosecution team, just that the person accurately relates the facts and demonstrates the Tsar's level of personal knowledge of what was happening. It is a stimulating and I think very educational process we are undertaking.

If we can't find someone it may be sometime before I have the time to take this strand forward in any meaningful way.  fondest regards to you both as ever.

Richard
I feel like one
Who treads alone
Some banquet-hall deserted,
Whose lights are fled,
Whose garlands dead,
And all, but he, departed!
Refrain:
Thus, in the stilly night,
Ere slumberís chain hath bound me,
Sad memíry brings the light
Of other days around me.

Thomas Moore 1815

Offline Richard_Cullen

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 373
  • Sad memory brings the light. Thomas Moore 1815
    • View Profile
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #65 on: January 29, 2006, 02:39:25 PM »
Your Honour Acting Presiding Judge (Rob)

The prosecution believes that we should put Count 1 of the indictment to the jury for a decision and that I then after due consideration move on to the 2nd Count which will relate to the pogroms against the Jews.

This allows us to keep the jury engaged and for learned counsel for the defence and me to have sufficient time to prepare the 2nd Count as we both seem to be on our own now.

Respectfully submitted

Richard
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Richard_Cullen »
I feel like one
Who treads alone
Some banquet-hall deserted,
Whose lights are fled,
Whose garlands dead,
And all, but he, departed!
Refrain:
Thus, in the stilly night,
Ere slumberís chain hath bound me,
Sad memíry brings the light
Of other days around me.

Thomas Moore 1815

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4437
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #66 on: January 29, 2006, 06:21:59 PM »
Your Honor,

I concur with the learned counsel for the Prosecution.

Richard and I both have discussed this matter privately and we both believe that we are ready to receive the jury's decision on Count # 1.

I also agree that if the Prosecution wishes to summit  a new Count against Nikolai Alexandrovich, I am prepared to offer a defense, one issue at a time.

This year I will be engaged with researching and writing a book with my Russian based co-author, which will necessitate a trip to Russia in July and August 2006.

Thank you for your consideration,

Margarita Nelipa
Counsel for the Defense


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4640
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #67 on: May 29, 2006, 12:46:28 PM »
Counsel for the Defence, with concurrence from the Prosecution,  has agreed to waive Defendant's right to a Trial by Jury.  Therefore, the Court will now review the evidence and render its Verdict.

Rob Moshein
Presiding Judge

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4640
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #68 on: May 29, 2006, 02:08:59 PM »
VERDICT IN RE PEOPLE V NICHOLAS II ALEXANDROVICH

The Court as Trier of Fact does make the following FINDINGS OF FACT:

1. †Emperor Nicholas II on the date in question Sunday 9 January 1905 (Bloody Sunday) was the ultimate authority in the Military Chain of Command with respect to the St. Petersburg Military District. †While actual authority had been delegated to Grand Duke Vladimir and thence by Ukaze to General Prince Vasil'chikov, such delegation of authority does not sui generis remove the Defendant from culpability for the actions of subordinates. †The Ukaze granting such authority itself provides the evidence that Defendant did ultimately possess such authority in the first place. †Further evidence is provided by the subsequent "assumption of all military control" during World War I. †This act is seen by the Court as the ultimate military authority merely removing the a priori delegation of such authority to others and subsequently resuming direct control and authority for himself. †We reject Defense counsel's assertion that because Defendant did not himself somehow assume "actual" military authority until 23 August 1914 that he somehow was not a superior authority to those to whom Defendant had delegated that authority. †We refer Defense counsel to the Nuremburg trials for crimes against humanity where this same defense ("I wasn't actually in charge, a subordinate was...") was rejected on numerous occasions.

2. †Prosecution states: to prove murder in law the prosecution must prove:
(a) Mens rea, †(the mental side of making a decision to unlawfully kill and individual,


This Court finds no evidence presented that Defendant Nicholas II Alexandrovich did in fact have Mens Rea to unlawfully kill any individual or group of individuals. †We find no evidence submitted to substantiate any notion that Defendant Nicholas II Alexandrovich personally ordered his subordinates to "Shoot to Kill" during the period of Martial Law declared, nor specifically on Bloody Sunday.

3. This Court finds that Defendant Nicholas II Alexandrovich did not fail to exercise control properly over any person under his effective command and control or his effective authority and control, which led to the events in question. †Rather, both sides have provided evidence that Defendant received regular reports and information of events, and was in fact under the genuine knowledge and belief that his subordinates were performing their duties properly.  There was no evidence introduced that it was somehow forseeable that Defendant should have known of or expected a failure in the regular and routine lines of communication to him from subordinates.

4. †Since Defendant was in reality mistaken in his perceived knowledge and belief about the performance of the duties by subordinates, was Defendant Nicholas II criminally negligent in failing to know that his subordinates were about to commit, or were committing offenses? †There is no evidence introduced to indicate that Defendant had done anything less than he could reasonably be expected to do. †He received regular reports, satisfied himself reasonably that peace had been restored to St. Petersburg. †The cancellation of Martial Law is telling evidence that Defendant was in fact genuinely satisfied that St. Petersburg was again peaceful and unrest was quelled. †The actions of Gapon and the demonstrators were obviously unforseeable at the time. †Had Gapon telegraphed the Defendant in advance to request an audience, this may have been different, but Defendant could not reasonably know what was to occur. †We find no evidence of criminal negligence on the part of Defendant Nicholas II Alexandrovich.

5. Did Defendant breach his responsibility as a Superior? The law cited by the Prosecution states:
a superior commits an indictable offence if
(d) the superior subsequently
(1) fails to take, as soon as practicable, all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to prevent or repress the commission of the offence, or the further commission of offences under section 4 or 6 or
(2) fails to take, as soon as practicable, all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.


The evidence clearly demonstrates that Defendant Nicholas II Alexandrovich did nothing whatsoever after the events of Bloody Sunday with respect to the subsequent investigation of the actual events to determine the causes thereof; that Defendant did nothing to take any reasonable measure to prevent further commission of the offenses; nor did Defendant take any measures whatsoever to prosecute those actually responsible for the offenses of Bloody Sunday.

Therefore, the Court finds and rules in this matter as follows:

As to Count I of the indictment, the charge of †the Capital Crime of "Murder in the First Degree, for the events of Sunday 9 January 1905 in Palace Square, St. Petersburg Russia,
the Defendant Nicholas II Alexandrovich is NOT GUILTY.

As to the lesser-included Crime of "Breach of Responsibility as a Superior", for the events of Sunday 9 January 1905 in Palace Square, St. Petersburg Russia,
 the Defendant Nicholas II Alexandrovich is GUILTY.


29 May 2006

Rob Moshein
Presiding Judge